- Email: [email protected]
Opposition government in Mexico
Bull. Latin Am. Res.,Vol.
IS, No. 2. ~9.269-291.
1996
Published
by Eiswier Science Ltd. Print4 in Great Britain 0261-3OSOj96 S15.00 +0 .lXI
Pergamon
Book Reviews Rodriguez, Victoria E. and Ward, Peter M. (eds) (1995), Opposition Government in Mexico, University of New Mexico Press (Albuquerque). xv + 255 pp. $45 hbk, $22.50 pbk. The political system of Mexico has long been held up as a model of structural stability. The Mexican variant of corporatism has won the respect of a large group of observers who have often suggested or implied that the rest of the Third World should consider emulating its most successful components. More recently, however, praise of the system’s stability has been tempered by heightened hopes for democracy. The limited electoral success of opposition parties at the municipal and state levels since the mid-1980s has raised the question of whether significant progress is being made to fulfil those hopes. According to the authors of the fourteen original essays included in this volume, the answer to that question is yes. This remarkably cohesive volume of carefully researched case studies provides the reader with a broad understanding of the incipient phases of the yet-to-be wnsolidated transition to genuine democracy. It does so by observing opposition governments from three basic perspectives. In part one, non-PRI parties are examined as they make the transition from parties of opposition to parties in government. Part two provides an analysis of the bases of support for the opposition. And in part three, the politics of public administration are taken into consideration, with a focus on municipal finance and intergovernmental relations between opposing parties in government. Not surprisingly, opposition governments in Mexico have faced numerous obstacles. In the most general sense, forces of democracy must operate in a system that, as Robert Bezdek documents, has yet to purge itself of all its repressive elements. More specifically, Jose Antonio Crespo finds that effective governing by opposition forces is hindered by the need to allocate an inordinate amount of time and effort to the tasks of consolidating newly acquired power, and counteracting the responses of the PRI and its allies. Another problem area is highlighted by Kathleen Bruhn, Keith Yanner, Jonathan Fox and Julio Moguel, who have discovered that PRI forces have been able to fight opposition governments through partisan use of public-works funding. Despite such obstacles, this volume suggests that guarded optimism is not unwarranted. Tonatiuh Guillen Lopez, for example, argues that events in Baja California, the first state in which the opposition won a governorship, demonstrate that rapid progress has been made toward genuine democracy. Another optimistic voice is that of Victoria Rodriguez. In her examination of the opposition city governments of Chihuahua and Ciudad Juarez, she finds that the forces of democracy are operating reasonably well. While upper levels of government do appear to adopt some strategies for withholding funds from those opposition municipal governments, Rodriguez concludes that ‘there is no systematic withholding of statutory state and federal transfers.’ In fact, she finds that non-PRI local govemments are able to function with more autonomy from the higher levels of government than are PRI local governments. Those Bndings are supported by Moisb Jaime Bailon, whose study of the state of Oaxaca demonstrates that ‘those [municipalities] governed by the opposition are no different from those governed by the PRI when it
270
BULLETIN
OF LATIN AMERICAN
RESEARCH
comes to statutory transfers from the state.’ Moreover, he finds that ‘in terms of public investment programs, opposition governments have done slightly better than have PRI governments.’ Additional cause for optimism is found in John Bailey’s examination of fiscal administration in Nuevo Leon. He concludes that the nature of interaction between the central and state governments has brought about the ‘pragmatic accommodation’ of opposition governments. The main reason for this, according to Bailey, is the national government’s belief that in order to meet its goals of private-sector growth, ‘governability’ must be achieved in Nuevo Leon; ‘and governability in that state implies greater pluralism and partisan accommodation.’ There are many reasons to recommend this excellent volume of ground-breaking research, and two are particularly apparent and most appreciated by this reader. First, most of the essays are fine examples of mature, judicious scholarship, characterised by lucid reasoning and prudent conclusions. Second, most of the work presented here is not tainted by ideology. It is refreshing to read the work of academics who believe that scholarship is best served by objectivity. Martin J. Co110 Widener University
Brysk, Alison (1994), The Politics of Human ,Rights in Argentina: Protest, Change and Democratization, Stanford University Press (Stanford). xiii + 291 pp. $30.00 hbk. Alison Brysk’s book represents a substantial, scholarly and highly intelligent addition to the literature on both recent Argentine history and on international human rights issues and movements. It draws on extensive first-hand research, notably about one hundred interviews with Argentine human rights activists. The human rights movement which solidified during the Argentine military dictatorship of 1976-1983 essentially comprised three wings: civil libertarian groups, family-based organisations and those religious groupings who sought to resist the collaborative tendencies of the Argentine Church. [Brysk reminds us that the most famous of the family-based groups, the Madres de Plaza de Mayo, constituted ‘a historically and internationally new form of social organisation’ (p. 47).] These groups, denied any institutional access, engaged in ‘symbolic protest’ during the military’s ‘total war’ against subversion. After the 1983 elections-the ‘revenge of the citizens’-the movement continued to press for democratic accountability, military trials, investigations, in some instances exhumations, and the institutionalisation of civil liberty protections. As one activist interviewed by Brysk put it: ‘We need to confront the past in order to build the future’ (p. 67). Brysk’s argument is that, during the Proceso, the movement’s ‘expressive mode’ of political action achieved much. It awakened international opinion, notably in Jimmy Carter’s Washington. It created a ‘counterhegemonic culture of resistance’. It forced the military to make at least symbolic responses, and represented a significant factor in achieving the eventual (post-Malvinas) democratic transition. After 1983, important advances continued to be made. According to Brysk, nowhere ‘else in the world have former military rulers been tried for human rights violations by an elected civilian government’ (p. 63). However, as Ralil Alfonsin himself remarked after the elections: ‘The Argentine people have not taken the Bastille’ (p. 89). The new radical government was merely grafted on to a repressive and often corrupt state apparatus, over which the military continued to enjoy a power of veto. The human rights
IS, No. 2. ~9.269-291.
1996
Published
by Eiswier Science Ltd. Print4 in Great Britain 0261-3OSOj96 S15.00 +0 .lXI
Pergamon
Book Reviews Rodriguez, Victoria E. and Ward, Peter M. (eds) (1995), Opposition Government in Mexico, University of New Mexico Press (Albuquerque). xv + 255 pp. $45 hbk, $22.50 pbk. The political system of Mexico has long been held up as a model of structural stability. The Mexican variant of corporatism has won the respect of a large group of observers who have often suggested or implied that the rest of the Third World should consider emulating its most successful components. More recently, however, praise of the system’s stability has been tempered by heightened hopes for democracy. The limited electoral success of opposition parties at the municipal and state levels since the mid-1980s has raised the question of whether significant progress is being made to fulfil those hopes. According to the authors of the fourteen original essays included in this volume, the answer to that question is yes. This remarkably cohesive volume of carefully researched case studies provides the reader with a broad understanding of the incipient phases of the yet-to-be wnsolidated transition to genuine democracy. It does so by observing opposition governments from three basic perspectives. In part one, non-PRI parties are examined as they make the transition from parties of opposition to parties in government. Part two provides an analysis of the bases of support for the opposition. And in part three, the politics of public administration are taken into consideration, with a focus on municipal finance and intergovernmental relations between opposing parties in government. Not surprisingly, opposition governments in Mexico have faced numerous obstacles. In the most general sense, forces of democracy must operate in a system that, as Robert Bezdek documents, has yet to purge itself of all its repressive elements. More specifically, Jose Antonio Crespo finds that effective governing by opposition forces is hindered by the need to allocate an inordinate amount of time and effort to the tasks of consolidating newly acquired power, and counteracting the responses of the PRI and its allies. Another problem area is highlighted by Kathleen Bruhn, Keith Yanner, Jonathan Fox and Julio Moguel, who have discovered that PRI forces have been able to fight opposition governments through partisan use of public-works funding. Despite such obstacles, this volume suggests that guarded optimism is not unwarranted. Tonatiuh Guillen Lopez, for example, argues that events in Baja California, the first state in which the opposition won a governorship, demonstrate that rapid progress has been made toward genuine democracy. Another optimistic voice is that of Victoria Rodriguez. In her examination of the opposition city governments of Chihuahua and Ciudad Juarez, she finds that the forces of democracy are operating reasonably well. While upper levels of government do appear to adopt some strategies for withholding funds from those opposition municipal governments, Rodriguez concludes that ‘there is no systematic withholding of statutory state and federal transfers.’ In fact, she finds that non-PRI local govemments are able to function with more autonomy from the higher levels of government than are PRI local governments. Those Bndings are supported by Moisb Jaime Bailon, whose study of the state of Oaxaca demonstrates that ‘those [municipalities] governed by the opposition are no different from those governed by the PRI when it
270
BULLETIN
OF LATIN AMERICAN
RESEARCH
comes to statutory transfers from the state.’ Moreover, he finds that ‘in terms of public investment programs, opposition governments have done slightly better than have PRI governments.’ Additional cause for optimism is found in John Bailey’s examination of fiscal administration in Nuevo Leon. He concludes that the nature of interaction between the central and state governments has brought about the ‘pragmatic accommodation’ of opposition governments. The main reason for this, according to Bailey, is the national government’s belief that in order to meet its goals of private-sector growth, ‘governability’ must be achieved in Nuevo Leon; ‘and governability in that state implies greater pluralism and partisan accommodation.’ There are many reasons to recommend this excellent volume of ground-breaking research, and two are particularly apparent and most appreciated by this reader. First, most of the essays are fine examples of mature, judicious scholarship, characterised by lucid reasoning and prudent conclusions. Second, most of the work presented here is not tainted by ideology. It is refreshing to read the work of academics who believe that scholarship is best served by objectivity. Martin J. Co110 Widener University
Brysk, Alison (1994), The Politics of Human ,Rights in Argentina: Protest, Change and Democratization, Stanford University Press (Stanford). xiii + 291 pp. $30.00 hbk. Alison Brysk’s book represents a substantial, scholarly and highly intelligent addition to the literature on both recent Argentine history and on international human rights issues and movements. It draws on extensive first-hand research, notably about one hundred interviews with Argentine human rights activists. The human rights movement which solidified during the Argentine military dictatorship of 1976-1983 essentially comprised three wings: civil libertarian groups, family-based organisations and those religious groupings who sought to resist the collaborative tendencies of the Argentine Church. [Brysk reminds us that the most famous of the family-based groups, the Madres de Plaza de Mayo, constituted ‘a historically and internationally new form of social organisation’ (p. 47).] These groups, denied any institutional access, engaged in ‘symbolic protest’ during the military’s ‘total war’ against subversion. After the 1983 elections-the ‘revenge of the citizens’-the movement continued to press for democratic accountability, military trials, investigations, in some instances exhumations, and the institutionalisation of civil liberty protections. As one activist interviewed by Brysk put it: ‘We need to confront the past in order to build the future’ (p. 67). Brysk’s argument is that, during the Proceso, the movement’s ‘expressive mode’ of political action achieved much. It awakened international opinion, notably in Jimmy Carter’s Washington. It created a ‘counterhegemonic culture of resistance’. It forced the military to make at least symbolic responses, and represented a significant factor in achieving the eventual (post-Malvinas) democratic transition. After 1983, important advances continued to be made. According to Brysk, nowhere ‘else in the world have former military rulers been tried for human rights violations by an elected civilian government’ (p. 63). However, as Ralil Alfonsin himself remarked after the elections: ‘The Argentine people have not taken the Bastille’ (p. 89). The new radical government was merely grafted on to a repressive and often corrupt state apparatus, over which the military continued to enjoy a power of veto. The human rights